who can help me determine the validity of my fiancee's
chiropractor/natropath's claims about non-standard genetic
effects?
        In addition to fixing up our backs etc, my fiancee's
chiropractor (in his natropath cap) is advising us on how
we can avoid passing on my father-in-law's genetic predisposition
to cancer (he had cancer) to our future children.
        The reason I am posting this here is that I would
like to know your informed opinions about his claims of
non-standard genetic effects. We both (especially myself, a
protein structure determiner) find some of his claims rather
unusual. For example he purports (and claims is proven) that:
        1. The first child (of each sex) will have the genetic
predisposition of the parent of the opposite sex. (So, for example,
our first son will have my fiancee's genetic predisposition which will
be, in turn, my father-in-law's predispostion because my finacee is
his first daughter). This seems, of course, to fly in the face of
the well proven central dogma of genetics, namely that the child
receives half of it's genetic material from the mother and half
from the father. This determines the genotype. The phenotype is
determined by gene competition/regulation etc - eg {*filter*} and
reccessive genes. This seems to contradict this guys claims.
(I presume that there are small deviations from this dogma, just
like I recently had to admit that sex determination is not entirely
random - see New Scientist, late last year. However this guy's
claims do not amount to a small deviation).
        2. Notice that this claim is for the 'first' child. The idea
in 1. above applies to the first boy and first girl, after that he
lists percentage predispositions for 2nd boy etc. This also seems to
fly in the face of the central dogma.
        3. Probably the most unusual claim is that by 'first' child
he means the first child conceived by {*filter*}s. He claims that if
unity of female A & male B does not lead to conception when
later unity of female A & male C occurs and a (first) daughter is
concieved and born, that daughter will have the genetic predisposition
of male B, not male C. I acknowledge that this seems bizarre.

        I asked him for molecular mechanisms and he couldn't explain
it in the time we had. He gave me some references but they sounded
pretty obscure.

        Normally I wouldn't give much thought to this. In this case
there are 3 mitigating circumstances:
        1. My fiancee wants us to check it out
        2. This guy claims to have done extensive research over 40
years with cattle.
        3. This chiropractor/natropath was a doctor. In the 40s or 50s
he was disbarred for making these (bizarre) claims at a meeting of the
Australian Society of Medical Practicianers (or something like that).
He told us that between the 50s and 80s, one by one, his claims have
been proven. Then recently he won a 3 million dollar defamation claim
against that or some other society. He then donated the 3 million to
conventional medical research.

        Anyway, I basically don't have time to do research on this
sort of stuff, so has anyone out there heard of similar claims by
other researchers (preferably with publications in the conventional
literature) or by this guy?

        Thanx in advance        Paul Pallaghy
                                Biomolecular Res. Ins.
                                381 Royal Parade,
                                Parkville 3052,
                                (Melbourne), AUSTRALIA.

if you like - I will post a summary).

Keywords:

<Deletions about claims which appear contrary to established scientific
knowledge.>

The claims certainly sound wierd.  I would be rather surprised if they
turn out to be legitimate, especially since the chap claims that they
have been proved many years ago but somehow don't appear to have been
accepted by others.  

I strongly suspect that he was barred from continuing practice as a
medical practitioner in Australia for something more serious than holding
aberrant beliefs [although that may be the way he rationalises it].  His
belief system must have been affecting the quality and safety of his
medical practice in some way.  I wonder if the chap suffers from a
delusional disorder [schizophrenia? paraphrenia?].

I appreciate your statement that you do not have the time to check out
his claims in detail.  However I should think that you could gain a lot
of information fairly quickly and easily by simply feigning interest in
his claims and demanding back up proof of the published variety.  Ask him
for a bibliography [and preferably photocopies] of the published articles
from the work which he seems to believe supports his claims.  Note which
journals they appear in: are they reputable peer referred ones [see the
list of referrees inside the front cover] or the equivalent of the popular
press?  Ask him why he has not had a book published about his thesis and
why his ideas are not included for consideration in standard courses of
genetics.  Does he come up with a {*filter*} theory?

Of course there is always the possibility, although I suspect it is
rather remote in this case, that he is right and the scientific world is
about to be turned upside down.  In which case you have the priviledge of
having met a "great man".

The more likely explanation is that the chap is deluded.  Hopefully his
delusions are "encapsulated" and don't affect his chiropractic expertise.
If he starts having wierd and wonderful ideas in that area [i.e. he
believes he can cure cancer by chiropractic manipulations] I'd persuade
your fiancee to change her chiropracter in a hurry.  Contact the school of
chiropractic at RMIT for referral to a good one.  

You should also let the chiropractic registration board know of your
experiences.  It is in their interests to maintain the high standard which
Australian chiropractic is renowned for.  

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rosemary Lyndall                Rosemary from DownUnder            _--_|\


  ------------------------------------------------------------------------v-

This certainly flies in the face of what I know about genetics and cell
biology. The first step would be to track down his references. If they
appear in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, you could consider these
theories further. As to the naturopath winning a defamation suit, I
would never consider the judgement of a court to be any measure of
scientific validity.
--

|> who can help me determine the validity of my fiancee's
|> chiropractor/natropath's claims about non-standard genetic
|> effects?
|>   In addition to fixing up our backs etc, my fiancee's
|> chiropractor (in his natropath cap) is advising us on how
|> we can avoid passing on my father-in-law's genetic predisposition
|> to cancer (he had cancer) to our future children.
|>
|>   Normally I wouldn't give much thought to this.

Smart fellow

|>                                            In this case
|> there are 3 mitigating circumstances:
|>   1. My fiancee wants us to check it out

I hate to say this but i have a feeling you are about to marry a "space case".

|>   2. This guy claims to have done extensive research over 40
|> years with cattle.
|>   3. This chiropractor/natropath was a doctor. In the 40s or 50s
|> he was disbarred for making these (bizarre) claims at a meeting of the
|> Australian Society of Medical Practicianers (or something like that).
|> He told us that between the 50s and 80s, one by one, his claims have
|> been proven. Then recently he won a 3 million dollar defamation claim
|> against that or some other society. He then donated the 3 million to
|> conventional medical research.

This is checkable.  In the United States every lawsuit gets a "docket number"
which is a number attached to the lawsuit when it is filed.  You can ask the
court for a copy -- it's a public document.  Three megabuck lawsuits don't
hide.

I don't know the details but no doubt Australia has similar rituals, and if he
fails to produce a docet number than this is a lie -- not a misrepresentation
or matter of interpretation -- of a core claim by him and most quacks, "the Big
Bad Authorities called me a liar _but i proved them wrong_"

If you catch him at an independently checkable _lie_, as opposed to catching
him only having published in the vanity press rather than a real journal, you
will have much more convince-power with your fiance.

-dk